Alberta's environment minister Shannon Phillips thinks we need to get better at conflict resolution to deal with ISIS.

On Monday when asked if a Canadian contingent would still be attending the United Nations Climate Change Summit in Paris at the end of November, Phillips said this:

"I'm sure it will be a significantly more somber atmosphere and I think what it does is it shows us that we have a tremendous amount of work to do as a global community, both on climate change and obviously on issues related to peace and conflict resolution.."

129 people are dead. 352 people are injured. The French police are still looking for suspects. Yet Shannon Phillips thinks that this violent act of Jihad demonstrates that we need to do more work on climate change? Is there nothing the left won't blame on climate change?

The left is so scared to hold fundamental Islamists accountable for the evil they perpetrate that they'll blame the weather.

Phillips also said we need to do more work on issues related to peace and conflict resolution to better deal with jihadis. That’s crazy talk. But it's also the standard left wing talking point; that we could have and should have negotiated with ISIS. Canada's own national defense minister, Harjit Sajjan, is saying the same thing. ISIS doesn’t want an end to conflict. They want to rule the world.

But why would Shannon Phillips say something so strange and so full of such unmitigated western guilt? Well, Phillips used to work for Al Jazeera. That’s the Alberta hating, propaganda arm of the Qatari government. Is Phillips so deluded and full of hate for Alberta and our ethical oil that she'd try to superimpose her climate change agenda as a motivating factor for terrorists?

You know what they say: you can take the girl off of Al Jazeera but you can't take Al Jazeera out of the girl.

Comments

JEFF Goddard- I knew that the comment was not directed at me. No offense taken, but I also appreciate that you admitted to letting frustration cloud your judgement. I believe intelligent conversations disintegrate when derogatory statements are added to the mix.

Not my finest hour, Maurice. I let my frustration cloud my judgement. I offer my apologies to anyone I may have offended. I should know better. To be clear, that line was not directed at Dave. It was in response to something he said. A poor response, granted.

“Why do you think it is appropriate to apply the burden of proof required in criminal trials –”

Conjecture and non-fact based opinion should not be used as “proof” of one’s assertions. We will probably have to agree to disagree on whether it is more important to judge people on what they say rather than what we think they really mean. Of course, actions will trump the spoken word. So, the article may eventually prove true. However, until then it is stll intentionally putting words in someone’s mouth just to destroy their credibility. Politicians generally don’t need help with that. :-) I would defend you with just as much ferver should I see someone I felt was twisting your words in an attempt to discredit you, Maurice.

I am certainly not dismissing your examples of hypothetical situations. However, I find them to be somewhat non-sequiturs to the actual situation we are discussing.

In Example #1, the people speaking actually have the authourity to act in any (legal) manner they choose. They are 100% in control of all aspects of the company. Whereas, this Minister has no clout in matters of National Security. If she believes climate is the root cause of the current spate of terrorism, she wouldn’t make the last page on my respect list. If she said it in the past, then we can deal with that. My only concern is that we not whitewash people. That’s what this feels like to me. We need to stick to the facts. Words matter.

In Example #2, " I think what it does is it shows people that I have a lot of work to do as a young man, both with getting better grades and obviously on not getting beat up by the school bully."

I really have trouble seeing your point of view here, Maurice. This could just as easily have kept adding “and” while offering up an endless list of self improvements. They are, in my mind at least, seperate and independent of each other. He has two issues he needs to work on. He didn’t say his grades were poor because the bully beats him before every test and therefore is the sole reason for his poor grades. Maybe he did. But, until someone actually says it, it remains a single isolated incident giving us nothing upon which to make that assumption. In this example, the student hadn’t even taken the test. So, that leaves me nothing upon which to determine the bully has anything to do with his poor performance.

This may seem like nitpicking. That’s because it is. Again, words matter.

I’m not trying to argue for the sake of arguing, Maurice. I genuinely believe in fair play. The seige mentality that the Left and Right have for each other only serves to paralyze the system from functioning. See the U.S.A. for an example.
I understand there is a war of ideologies at play here. I refuse to consider mis-guided, well meaning Canadians as my enemy even though they may be be dangerous (ie. Trudeau)

What non-politcos want to hear is the truth. Maybe someday one side or the other will give them that. At which point, the opposing team will almost certainly claim it is a lie. I believe this to be the predominant cause of many people’s disdain for the entire system regardless of who is holding the reins. Everyone lies. How are Canadians supposed to decipher the truth in such a dishonest, poisonous atmoshpere?

Jeff Goddard – First off, “apologetic” in the context I’ve used it is descriptive of the defense you are mounting with regards to Phillips’ statement; you are offering up a formal defense asserting that your viewpoint, are you not? Given your disparaging insinuations concerning others’ literacy (eg. “read at more than a grade 2 level” directed at Dave Giroux) I find it ironic that your response to me starts out in denial for something you’re quite obviously doing – consult a dictionary as to the definition of apologist before attempting to counter this point, please.

Why do you think it is appropriate to apply the burden of proof required in criminal trials – being “beyond a reasonable doubt” – rather than the preponderance of evidence seen as appropriate in civil trials with regards to this statement? The Minister did not simply say we have work to do; in the context of speaking of the determination to go ahead with the summit she highlighted the eponymous justification (“Climate Change”) in tandem with the justification Ms Reid notes. There was no grammatical structure in place in her statement to give the listener any reason to believe she was juxtaposing the two endeavors; on a balance of probabilities, the structure of her sentence and the choice to not disentangle the “issues related to peace and conflict resolution” from climate change lends itself to the clear implication I’ve already indicated, given the balance of probabilities. Perhaps further examples would be helpful, seeing as my Parent-Teacher Conference scenario wasn’t sufficient?

Example 1: Work Meeting

“We will have the sales meeting on Friday afternoon in spite of the fact half the staff has been leaving early on Fridays. I think what it does is it shows us that we have a tremendous amount of work to do as a company, both on increasing sales and obviously on issues related to staff leaving early from work.”

The implication here would be the staff absences will be discussed during the sales meeting – it is not explicitly stated but any employee in earshot of such an announcement would understand implicit meaning behind lumping together the intended focus of the meeting and the additional consideration that has been attached. This makes sense because the two are logically related (work absences contributing to reduced sales is not a leap)

Example 2: Study Habits

“I will still study for the test in spite of having one eye swollen shut from the beating by the school bully. I think what it does is it shows people that I have a lot of work to do as a young man, both with getting better grades and obviously on not getting beat up by the school bully."

This statement is intuitively nonsensical – how does demonstrating good study habits towards increasing academic outcomes reflect on the work the young man would need to do towards not getting beat up? Studying doesn’t reveal anything concerning the avoidance of brutalization, except that the studying is undertaken in spite of the physical (and mental) distractions effected by said brutalization. The work of not getting beat up is out of place unless the premise that it is the proof of somehow contains an element whereby a solution is in progress.

I guess after the NDP & the liberals have completely destroyed the oil industry, where people have no jobs, no homes because they can’t make their mtge pmt anymore, they’re on welfare, at the food banks, no sense of worth, MAYBE then they will stop their madness, but by then it will be too late. This climate crapola has become like a drug to them, where they just cannot get enough, now they are resorting to high jacking & robbing Albertans to feed their habit.
They’re listening to the likes of Suzuki & the Pembina Institute among others to make their decisions. Are there any conservative voices included in their studies. They, Trudeau, Notley claim that they are for all Canadians, but only listen to one side of the equation. Is there nothing that Albertans & the oil companies can do to end their destructive agenda?

I said I wouldn’t vote Liberal if you put a gun to my head. That’s true. But, I meant to say NDP.
This may get past people. But, it irks me. I used ‘there’ when I meant ‘their’ in the post below. That stuff makes me a little nuts. Wicked flu hit this morning. Brain is more foggy than usual. :-D

Hi Maurice. I am not apologizing for anyone. There is nothing to apologize for. She did not say what the author claims she said. You may be right about the Minister. The point here is not to project what you “think” she believes into what she actually said. It’s about playing fair. We wouldn’t want people altering what you and I say into whatever suits there agenda.

“The clear implication is that issues related to peace and conflict resolution are going to be touched upon during the summit.”

I beg to differ here, Maurice. It isn’t clear at all. The Minister simply said we have work to do. Pretty profound stuff, huh? :) What she did not say is that this work would begin at the Climate Conference. Nor that she would be front and center in any such work. We need to stick to the facts like a Court of Law would. Conjecture and speculation has no place here. The facts are the facts. Fact is she didn’t say what is being reported.
You and others are saying this because you think, quite possibly correctly, this person may have some whacky views. The author should then use that legitimate information to expose her. Don’t invent things. It makes everyone at The Rebel look more like they are working for The Libel.

If you’ve ever had an opportunity to cross paths with Ms. Phillips in conversation you’d be inclined to rethink your apologetic stance on this quote from her. It’s no hyper-partisan leap to connect climate change with terror attacks in Phillips’ verbiage; consider:

“I think what it does is it shows us that we have a tremendous amount of work to do as a global community, both on climate change and obviously on issues related to peace and conflict resolution.”

“It” is obviously the decision to go on with the meeting in spite of the situation, so let’s just substitute that in:

“I think what continuing on with the United Nations Climate Change Summit in spite of the terrorist attacks does is it shows us that we have a tremendous amount of work to do as a global community, both on climate change and obviously on issues related to peace and conflict resolution.”

The clear implication is that issues related to peace and conflict resolution are going to be touched upon during the summit.

Let’s make it easier to wrap our heads around the statement by substituting the summit with “Parent-Teacher Conference”, “climate change” with “Billy’s Grades” and “issues related to peace and conflict resolution” with “issues related to stopping Billy’s father’s infidelity”, so we have:

“I think what continuing on with the Parent-Teacher Conference in spite of the break-up of Billy’s parents does is it shows us that we have a tremendous amount of work to do as a school, both on helping with Billy’s grades and obviously on issues related to Billy’s father’s infidelity.”

I’m thinking that’s a terribly uncomfortable Parent-Teacher Conference where Billy’s dad’s cheating ways and how to solve them are being discussed! In this case I’ve made it so the two (Billy’s grades, dad’s wandering… eye) are actually related so as to illustrate the mindset of Phillips, but it doesn’t change the fact one can interpret the statement to mean what Ms Reid is asserting. Someone like Phillips would likely be more than happy to inform you that the connection between the two is “obvious”.

Dave Giroux wrote:“Ps: I don’t like any of the political parties because they do not efficiently problem solve, just whine, and take sides like grown children”
Actually Dave, grown children can likely read at more than a grade 2 level. I’ve pointed out numerous times below that this entire article is one huge lie. All you need to read is in the first few sentences. Everything after that is complete fabrication. Yet, virtually no one here is able to so much as consider that.

Minister Phillips didn’t tie the two events together. The questioner did. She was asked if she would still attend given the terrorist attacks. So, of course it was in her answer. But, these sad little sheep are unable to even entertain the idea. So much hatred for anyone brainwashed by the Left that they can’t see they’ve been brainwashed by the Right. So sad. So terribly sad.
Jeff

Yep she shouldn’t have brought up climate change when speaking about the “Climate Change Confrence”
You people should really pick your battles. If she hadn’t mentioned the atrocities, and pretended that climate change was the only concerning global issue, then I could validate these one sided emotional responses.
At least when I hear concerns regarding refugees, and security risks it makes sense to a degree. But please take off the partisan glasses and stop reading what is not there!
Ps: I don’t like any of the political parties because they do not efficiently problem solve, just whine, and take sides like grown children.

Peter Karelse commented 28 mins ago
Well if terrorism is linked to climate change, would someone explain the Ottoman Empire. This was before climate change and involved the same group. We should take note as the Ottoman Empire was around for around 600 years.

The left wing alarmist’s would simply deny that it ever existed, like they did with the Medieval warm period and little ice age.

Well if terrorism is linked to climate change, would someone explain the Ottoman Empire. This was before climate change and involved the same group. We should take note as the Ottoman Empire was around for around 600 years.

It is very disappointimng to see that almost every commenter on this article is just a sheep following Ms Reid’s vulgar distortion of the facts. If only you could all see what I see. The Right is just as screwed up as the Left. You (Left & Right) all have your heads on a swivel hoping for a “gotcha moment” from the other side. To that end, you (Again – Left & Right) either never knew how to formulate your own thoughts or are so wrapped up in your idealogies that you won’t even entertain the FACT that you are being willfully mislead. Either intentionally or out of pure vitriol and ignorance.
The truth is in the damned article. Yet only 2 or 3 of you are able or willing to accept that. If it doesn’t suit your narrative, you pretend you never read it.
Many of you are everything you claim to hate about the other sde. Intolerant, dishonest and, well.. in some cases, just plain nuts.
Jeff

Jim Small: Still l would love to see how she is going to solve either one.
Is she going to plant more trees to solve the first and stick her finger in the barrel of a sub-machine gun while singing to the terrorist to solve the other.

No, sorry, you got it wrong on this one. Phillips in that quote was not equating terrorism with climate change. Her quote indicates they were two separate issues that were to be discussed. That’s why the word “and” was placed inside that sentence separating the two.

Scott G. – There is no doubt some Loony Leftists will make a correlation between climate and revolution/war. But, we aren’t discussing other people. The entire article slanders the Minister for something she never said. In this instance, what other people have said is irrelevant.
cheers,
Jeff

Terry Gain – Fact is Terry, I am already looking at every contributor on this site with a jaundiced view. The first article I read/watched is based on a blatantly obvious lie.

While I appreciate Brian and Ezra’s contributions to important matters, if they vetted this piece (as they should have) they are as guilty as Ms. Reid. From here on in, I am forced to doubt anything they claim as fact.

It’s too bad. I like Ezra and Brian. Sometimes I am late for work because I love listening to John Robson on CFRA on Monday mornings. Nothing short of a retraction and apology to the Minister will convince me The Rebel has any integrity or validity going forward.
cheers,
Jeff

Wasn’t that what was said on TVO. I am pretty sure the left is blaming Drought on Climate change, and crop problems and that causes social unrest, so then it causes wars which causes attacks in Paris.
—
And that is why Canada must have gone to war because of the Dust bowl in the Prairies. Not Hitler. It was Canada’s fault for the Genocide/Holocaust and therefore climate change. Stupid liberals.

Jeff Goddard, you make an excellent point and Ms Gunn should respond. Although other whack leftists have blamed ISIS on Climate Change, Ms. Phillips did not in this instance. The Rebel is performing a much needed public service but it will damage its credibility with this kind of journalism.

First time posting to The Rebel. I have no political affiliation. None of them seem worthy to me. I am not Left and I am not Right. Rather, I “try” to be pragmatic.

I have to say that this attempt to put words in this politican’s mouth abandons all journalstic integrity. It is Yellow Journalism at it’s worst. There is plenty to dislike/fear about the regressive Left without inventing issues.

“we have a tremendous amount of work to do as a global community, both on climate change AND obviously on issues related to peace and conflict resolution..” Ms Reid may be forgiven for a basic lack of English comprehension. Our education system is failing us miserably. You cannot rationally dissect this sentence and deduce the Minister was directly tying climate change to terrorism. We have work to do on both of these two unrelated issues is what she actually said in the quote.

I am not an apologist for the Left or the Liberal parties. Justin is a fool who will surely have the blood of Canadians on his hands one day soon. But, if you are going to distort the facts to further advance “your” cause, you, and by extension, this site only damage your own credibility. Minister Phillips is living in Lala Land thinking one can negotiate with the extremists. But she DIDNOT say climate change was the root of ISIL.

I’m glad you’re able to use humour to expose these charlatans and weirdos on the left, I don’t find them or their acting out particularly humourous though…
n.b. – I prefer the nature background with the changing light and seasons, to the bizzaro stucco-texture one.

The so called “climate change” has infected the lefty brain. Climate change is the biggest security threat we have today & not ISIS or radical Islamists as Obama, Kerry, would have you believe. Trudeau, Notley, Wynnebag, have not called it our biggest security threat, but they too think that it’s more important to act on a fake climate change than it is to destroy what is reality & that is ISIS establishing their global caliphate. They just don’t get it. Marco Rubio got it right “it’s them or us, we win or they win” there is no in between. Having said that, I have not heard of anyone dying from climate change, but I sure as hell heard of thousands dying at the hand of Islamic terrorists such as ISIS, etc. While these idiots rant about their climate change, police and military are dying & risking their lives trying to protect their sorry butts.

Conflict resolution?? Is she crazy full time or just out to lunch?. Don’t these people realize there is no conflict resolution with murderous terrorists. We are indeed in for some very bad times ahead should the influx of refugees go as planned. Terrorists have seeped into other countries posing as refugees and if the heads of Canada don’t think this will happen here as well then they have their heads buried in the sand. I have to say however that people should not be condemning all Muslims. Not all Muslims are sympathetic with the Islamic State point of view. To say they are is being very closed minded and just causes people to feel isolated and discriminated against and that’s really not how we should be acting. People should keep in mind that the Islamic State was and is killing their own Muslim brothers and sisters because they will not adhere to the Islamic rule. ISIS needs to be stopped at any cost . I am not feeling secure in the fact that our new Prime Minister has the best interests of our country at heart and I also don’t think he is listening to the Canadian people who are asking that he hold off on the refugee entrance into Canada.